Oregon State AD Scott Barnes recently said that 8 teams is the right number (2024)

Post: #81

(07-26-2024 09:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:

(07-26-2024 09:13 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: ...Flugaur noted a day or so ago that MWC 'dissolution' could be the 'endgame', with 3/4 of the MWC schools (or 9, not including Colorado College (I guess), only in for Women's Soccer)... ...with that, the PAC may just take everything except the 'bottom two' programs (that's for whomever to sort out) - or, heck, just take them all... put Gloria in as the PAC commish, and it's a done deal. No exit fees to worry about - the only issue is the MWC 'NCAA credits' or whatever, but I reckon that can get sorted out.

I don't believe in any dissolution theories. If 9/12 schools band together and end up in the same place, that is collusion and lawyers will be all over that. The settlement would be massive. I'd almost want to be Hawaii in that situation.

That is what is written in the bylaws.

Would love to use your "collusion" argument to litigate the fact that my university, SDSU, voted against adding two more MBB games to get to 20 by the vote of 12-1. In fact, they didn't vote for it when the conference made it 18 games. We didn't vote for increasing the exits fees as was done, via "collusion" of other MWC teams, to back in 2022.

Post: #82

B1G at 18, ACC at 17+ND…

Why not dissolve both the MW and AAC and go 18 + 4 football-only’rs with Army, Navy, Airforce and Hawaii…

“Power American Conference (PAC)”

FOOTBALL

East Region (not “division”)
*Army (Patriot)
*Navy (Patriot)
ECU
UAB
USF
FAU
Memphis
Tulane
Rice
UTSA
UNT
WestRegion(not “division”)
*Hawaii (Big West)
*AirForce (MVC or Summit)
WaSU
OSU
Boise
Fresno
San Diego
UNLV
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico

Football schedule…
3 OOC
6 in-region
2 OORegion (1 home, 1 away)
1 flex game *in region and for the teams not in the>>>>4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

M & W basketball is easy and will be split into 2 9-team divisions…

Double RR in division (16 games)
1 away cross division (1 game)
1 home cross division (1 game)

Division tournaments in each respective region until 2 remaining in each division….these 4 go to PAC Final Four.

All other sports in region with small amount of crossover = very little cross country travel (unlike B1G, ACC and Big 12).

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2024 08:56 PM by Fresno Fanatic.)

Post: #83

(07-26-2024 11:02 AM)PicksUp Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:53 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote: What is the added value of this move for the MW schools?
Would it be worth it to the MW schools to pay the penalty to leave that conference to join a PAC 2 that is comprised of the runts who were left behind?
If the current/next MW media deal can't get $20m per school per year, how is joining WSU and OSU going to get more than the MW will make?
The MW actually already has the better media markets as opposed to OSU/WSU. So does leaving a stable MW to join an unstable PAC 2 bring any sort of return on investment?
Personally I wouldn't trust the PAC schools on any valuation numbers they show. These are two of the schools that thought a PAC 10 minus USCLA was still worth $50m per school. What are Cal/Ford making for being in the ACC? I'd cut that number in half and work with that as the ceiling for a media deal.

Nobody in the PAC seriously thought they were going to make 50m per year. People took that number and ran with it without any evidence that the decision makers actually believed that. There was one school (Utah) that threw that number out there and I think it was the president. Im sure they wanted more than 30m since they rejected that deal when ESPN first offered.

As for a new PAC/MWC, they will be lucky to make 10-12m per school. Would they even make that much if they only stuck with at most 8 schools? Maybe. A full merger might knock down the values to about 7-8m per school. Whatever happens I doubt the MWC will dissolve cleanly and leave some schools behind.

They would have been close to that had they allowed UCLA to get a bigger share. Oregon and Washington wouldn't agree to UCLA making more than them in the PAC, so now they make half as much as them in the B1G. Makes sense. :sarcasm:

Post: #84

(07-26-2024 11:04 AM)AztecEmpire Wrote:

(07-26-2024 10:40 AM)bullet Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:10 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: If the Pac could pick any 6:

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
AFA
CSU

They can offer, let the new schools decide if they want to join right away and pay the huge fee, sue the MWC, wait a couple years, etc etc. It's possible that the 2Pac were willing to delay any sort of MWC raid b/c they wanted to keep their P4 option open, just in case.

That's a lot of money to get rid of Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii

Exactly. And if you look at TV ratings, UNLV and CSU are dismal. SDSU isn't even that great. Boise is the only one that is near Oregon St. and they are near the bottom of the P5.

If you are use using the Medium article as a basis it is flawed due to CBSSN games. Conference BB games between SDSU and UNLV have pulled in a million viewers. A conf FB between SDSU and Boise once did over 2mil. The key is where the games are broadcast and in the MW if you have a home game against a P5 chances are that game will be on CBSSN where no ratings will be reported. Unreported broadcasts count as 0 so it throws off the average/median for CBSSN heavy conferences.

Yes, smaller conference with the best teams and markets will maximize the value per team.

Post: #85

(07-26-2024 12:12 PM)bullet Wrote:

(07-26-2024 10:38 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: There's no news here. The podcast is a month old, and McLaughlin's source is Canzano's article that's already triggered a 24-page thread on this board. There's no actual direct quote from Barnes saying eight is the "right number". Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

However I do agree with McLaughlin's view that an eight-team Pac membership would be "incredibly low" and needs to be "at least in double digits" for the conference to be viable regardless of which G5 teams are added.

There are only 6 basketball conferences with less than 10 members. And other than the Ivy and Summit, they are at 9 because they lost members (I'm not counting the WAC yet-but they were over 10 last year).

With the new environment due to the lawsuits, I imagine they need more members because schools will be cutting sports.

SDSU wanted, and got, a 14 game schedule from the Big West when SDSU FB was going to the Big East some years back. We sill prefer fewer conference games to build a resume outside of conference.

Post: #86

(07-26-2024 05:25 PM)AztecEmpire Wrote:

(07-26-2024 05:18 PM)ken d Wrote:

(07-26-2024 12:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:

(07-26-2024 09:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:

(07-26-2024 09:13 AM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: ...Flugaur noted a day or so ago that MWC 'dissolution' could be the 'endgame', with 3/4 of the MWC schools (or 9, not including Colorado College (I guess), only in for Women's Soccer)... ...with that, the PAC may just take everything except the 'bottom two' programs (that's for whomever to sort out) - or, heck, just take them all... put Gloria in as the PAC commish, and it's a done deal. No exit fees to worry about - the only issue is the MWC 'NCAA credits' or whatever, but I reckon that can get sorted out.

I don't believe in any dissolution theories. If 9/12 schools band together and end up in the same place, that is collusion and lawyers will be all over that. The settlement would be massive. I'd almost want to be Hawaii in that situation.

Yeah I watched that episode and normally I would side with you but the thing that Flugaur pointed to and I was mildly shocked to see, was a clause in the MWC contract that allows for the disillusion of the conference. I definitely don't know all of the conference contracts inside and out but it seemed like something that wouldn't be normally included. Since it's in the contract I think there's some merit to the idea. Just food for thought.

"a clause in the MWC contract that allows for the dissolution [sic] of the conference".

Other than Flugaur saying this, is there any link to that assertion? The MWC bylaws already provide for dissolution (requires 3/4 of the 11 directors or 9 members). Is he saying that the contract provides some different threshold for dissolution, or just that, in the event of dissolution in accordance with the bylaws, the poaching penalties no longer apply?

It's extremely unlikely, it's not happening. But it's also why you see Hawaii and SJSU fans the most concerned in these threads. Hawaii, SJSU, and Nevada would be the 3 left behind. But why do that? It will save pennies on the dollar for the others while stabbing those 3 in the back. The PAC2 are delusional if they think they offer enough for that sort of move.

Hawaii already has a home for all their other sports, and Nevada would be welcomed back easily enough by any of their old homes.

Post: #87

(07-26-2024 12:15 PM)PicksUp Wrote:

(07-26-2024 11:57 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:10 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: If the Pac could pick any 6:

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
AFA
CSU

They can offer, let the new schools decide if they want to join right away and pay the huge fee, sue the MWC, wait a couple years, etc etc. It's possible that the 2Pac were willing to delay any sort of MWC raid b/c they wanted to keep their P4 option open, just in case.

That's a lot of money to get rid of Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii

Well Utah State and SJSU were terrible adds to begin with.

Utah St has been in the MW for 11 years and they have the 3rd best conference record over that span. 53-35 for a .601 win pct.

SJ state is in a huge market.

SJSU has the smallest AD budget in the MWC, has lousy facilities and very little fan support despite being in the Bay Area. They are pretty much an afterthought.

USU has a small fanbase and rather difficult to get to. They are in a state with just 3.4M people who favor Univ. of Utah and BYU much, much more than USU.

Post: #88

(07-26-2024 04:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: This is old information, Barnes comments were mentioned by Schulz and Canzano in their interview.

The thinking is straight forward, there is one TV contract to be had at roughly the same amount for either the Pac-12 or the MWC. Fewer schools means more paid out per school. But the basics seem to have been centered on first Boise State, then San Diego State and Colorado State, then UNLV and Air Force, with Fresno State the next MWC, and possibly UTSA in the mix. But this approach seems to be DOA. The revenue increase per school is said to be not enough to entice anyone to move, even with Pac-12 helping on exit fees.

According to Fluguar, the dissolving the MWC approach is getting looked at. This requires 9 MWC schools to vote dissolve. The same 6 above but now bring in Utah State, Wyoming and Nevada. This is a very puzzling idea, as it bloats from 8 to 11 schools, runs a huge risk of legal challenge (near certain, with an adverse outcome highly likely).

If the revenue difference on 8 school Pac-12 was not sufficient to justify a jump, how is an 11 school, likely to be any better? Especially when you consider these are bottom half MWC schools in terms of valuation. You also have to figure that a 12th school, UTSA is fairly likely meaning the TV revenue and non-football distributions would be split 12 ways versus 13 with a straight MWC merger (Hawaii has a separate TV deal and is not part of the conference for sports other than football). Basically, all you have done is swap UTSA for San Jose State and New Mexico. This makes little sense.

The big problem, and why I think what is being heard on the dissolution front is garbled, is that as soon as schools attempt to vote on dissolving the conference because they have a wink, wink, nod, nod, invite waiting with another conference, they are considered by any sensible person to be giving notice of withdrawal from the conference triggering the removal of their voting privilege. What is more is that it is an obvious attempt to deny severance money to the remaining schools, which for 9 schools would be around $140M plus any late notice penalties, plus the $108M Pac-12 poaching penalty in the scheduling agreement, plus some millions in future MWC distributions --mostly MBB credits--, perhaps all totally $300M, possibly $400M with penalties. The courts would see through the effort to deny the three schools left behind that money owed them and almost certainly would grant in their favor. We saw this happen in Oregon State and Washington State's favor with the Pac-12. You also have the possibility of the CSU Trustees and Gavin Newsom forcing San Diego State and Fresno State a "Calimony" type payment to San Jose State to offset the loss in revenue. To say this is a risky strategy is an understatement. And what if one the nine gets cold feet and the measure fails?

A full reverse merger makes a lot more sense and is IMO probably what is meant by dissolution of the MWC, as it avoids the obvious issues. But it got garbled to be break away. (Note, I agree, Hawaii is a net negative due to travel and exception from the media deal; SJSU has failed to invest or perform in basketball playing at the Big West level, not contributing to the MWC in the other sport that matters, and yes New Mexico is a poor state with bad demographics while UTSA is a massive upgrade. But how do you drop these three without a messy and expensive divorce? Maybe you can offer SJSU football only membership, and give large financial incentives to New Mexico to move to CUSA making room for UTSA)

Anyway, the logic of 8 is fewer mouths to feed for the same media revenue and somewhat better CFP odds. This makes a lot of sense. A collection of OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU, CSU, UNLV, AF and UTSA would work pretty well. But getting everyone onboard is another thing.

I think UTSA is a "diamond in the rough" but they would be out on an island in that collection. They only come if Tulane and Memphis do, perhaps even adding another AAC school. Just don't see that all happening.

Post: #89

(07-26-2024 05:07 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: Pac-2 loses some of their war chest if they are not ready to go in 26,
to avoid massive MWC payments in '27 bring in 5 MWC schools

Pac-2 in '26, OSU, WSU, Memph, UTSA, Tulane, USF, UAB, Liberty, Conn [FB only]
'27 add Boise, SDST, Fresno, UNLV, Haw [FB only]

Umm... no, for so many reasons.

Post: #90

(07-26-2024 06:04 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:

(07-26-2024 04:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: A full reverse merger makes a lot more sense and is IMO probably what is meant by dissolution of the MWC, as it avoids the obvious issues. But it got garbled to be break away. (Note, I agree, Hawaii is a net negative due to travel and exception from the media deal; SJSU has failed to invest or perform in basketball playing at the Big West level, not contributing to the MWC in the other sport that matters, and yes New Mexico is a poor state with bad demographics while UTSA is a massive upgrade. But how do you drop these three without a messy and expensive divorce? Maybe you can offer SJSU football only membership, and give large financial incentives to New Mexico to move to CUSA making room for UTSA)

How is Hawaii a net negative due to travel and exception from the media deal?

We pay six-figure travel subsidies to all visiting conference teams, which makes us the cheapest destination in the MWC by far. Everyone who plays us makes the trip over and back on charter flights, on our dime.

We also take the lowest annual conference distribution of any MWC member. We're the only team in the conference with a rabid enough fan base to be able to sell our tier 3 broadcast rights to a pay-per-view distributor for over three million dollars annually, and the MWC takes advantage of that fact by deducting that entire amount from our distribution, while still retaining full control over our tier 1 and 2 broadcast rights. If we were participating in the MWC media deal on the same basis as other conference members, our tier 3 games would be getting sold off to TNT or streamed on the Mountain West Network instead of being shown on pay-per-view, and the conference would be earning pennies on the dollar from them compared to the haircut the MWC is currently keeping for itself.

Plus the Week Zero exemption allows every MWC team that visits Hawaii to schedule a Week Zero game, giving them early media exposure nationally plus a choice between scheduling a seventh home game (extra revenue) or an extra bye week (reducing wear and tear on their athletes).

And then there's the tie-in to the Hawaii Bowl which gives the MWC participant exclusive national television coverage because it's the only bowl game on Christmas Eve.

Finally we give the conference a presence in the fifth largest urban market in the conference (and the largest with no direct competition from professional sports franchises):

MSA 2023 POPULATIONS
San Diego–Chula Vista–Carlsbad 3,269,973
Las Vegas–Henderson–North Las Vegas 2,336,573
San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara 1,945,767
Fresno 1,180,020
Honolulu 989,408
Albuquerque 922,296
Boise 824,657
Colorado Springs 768,832
Reno 564,782
Fort Collins 370,771
Logan 157,887
Laramie 38,257

All things considered Hawaii is hardly the millstone everyone makes us out to be. Maybe when we finally have a shiny new stadium like the ones at San Diego State and Colorado State -- but without the debt service because ours is being financed up front by state taxpayers to the tune of $400 million that's already been appropriated -- some of this static will clear up.

Sorry for the rant but I take exception to suggestions that Hawaii is the least most valuable member of the conference. We may not be in the top six but we sure as hell aren't in the bottom three.

I think you undervalue Hawaii a bit. It is the flagship university for the entire state. You have around 1.44M in populations statewide. Football is pretty popular there. To be honest of the schools from the MWC mentioned as being invited...

1. SDSU
2. UNLV
3. Boise
4. CUS
5. Fresno
6. AFA

I would prefer Hawaii (FB) with Gonzaga over AFA. Reasoning:

1. Away games give conference teams another home game opening.
2. Large media market.
3. Decent FB history and support, though would need a firm commitment to building a new stadium.
4. Get a chance to add one of the top 2 BB programs in the West in Zaga.
5. Desirable destination.

Post: #91

(07-26-2024 08:40 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:

(07-26-2024 11:02 AM)PicksUp Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:53 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote: What is the added value of this move for the MW schools?
Would it be worth it to the MW schools to pay the penalty to leave that conference to join a PAC 2 that is comprised of the runts who were left behind?
If the current/next MW media deal can't get $20m per school per year, how is joining WSU and OSU going to get more than the MW will make?
The MW actually already has the better media markets as opposed to OSU/WSU. So does leaving a stable MW to join an unstable PAC 2 bring any sort of return on investment?
Personally I wouldn't trust the PAC schools on any valuation numbers they show. These are two of the schools that thought a PAC 10 minus USCLA was still worth $50m per school. What are Cal/Ford making for being in the ACC? I'd cut that number in half and work with that as the ceiling for a media deal.

Nobody in the PAC seriously thought they were going to make 50m per year. People took that number and ran with it without any evidence that the decision makers actually believed that. There was one school (Utah) that threw that number out there and I think it was the president. Im sure they wanted more than 30m since they rejected that deal when ESPN first offered.

As for a new PAC/MWC, they will be lucky to make 10-12m per school. Would they even make that much if they only stuck with at most 8 schools? Maybe. A full merger might knock down the values to about 7-8m per school. Whatever happens I doubt the MWC will dissolve cleanly and leave some schools behind.

They would have been close to that had they allowed UCLA to get a bigger share. Oregon and Washington wouldn't agree to UCLA making more than them in the PAC, so now they make half as much as them in the B1G. Makes sense. :sarcasm:

For the sake of accuracy, USC and UCLA were going to demand larger shares, but USC AD Pat Haden backed away from it. That was in 2011. When they went to 12 schools under the new Larry Scott contract, they all got equal shares, although Utah and Colorado initially got less money for the first few years as the last two schools in. The conference never offered more, and they never asked for more.

Post: #92

(07-26-2024 04:27 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: This is old information, Barnes comments were mentioned by Schulz and Canzano in their interview.

A full reverse merger makes a lot more sense and is IMO probably what is meant by dissolution of the MWC, as it avoids the obvious issues. But it got garbled to be break away. (Note, I agree, Hawaii is a net negative due to travel and exception from the media deal; SJSU has failed to invest or perform in basketball playing at the Big West level, not contributing to the MWC in the other sport that matters, and yes New Mexico is a poor state with bad demographics while UTSA is a massive upgrade. But how do you drop these three without a messy and expensive divorce? Maybe you can offer SJSU football only membership, and give large financial incentives to New Mexico to move to CUSA making room for UTSA)

Anyway, the logic of 8 is fewer mouths to feed for the same media revenue and somewhat better CFP odds. This makes a lot of sense. A collection of OSU, WSU, BSU, SDSU, CSU, UNLV, AF and UTSA would work pretty well. But getting everyone onboard is another thing.

It is old news. The obvious move for Oregon State and Washington State would an 8 or 9 team PAC conference. I would add Fresno State instead of UTSA. I would add UTSA with Texas State, if possible. But that gets the conference to 10 teams, and I don't think there is enough TV revenue to justify the move. At the end of the day, the full merger is the best choice among the lousy choices OSU and WSU have.

Post: #93

(07-26-2024 08:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:19 AM)GTFletch Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:10 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: If the Pac could pick any 6:

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
AFA
CSU

They can offer, let the new schools decide if they want to join right away and pay the huge fee, sue the MWC, wait a couple years, etc etc. It's possible that the 2Pac were willing to delay any sort of MWC raid b/c they wanted to keep their P4 option open, just in case.

That's a lot of money to get rid of Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii

So would Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii join CUSA or AAC?

By guess is they would take UTEP and NMSU plus push for some FCS upgrades

Potential MWC FCS upgrades
Montana
Montana St.
North Dakota St.
South Dakota St.
Sacramento St.
UC Davis
Cal Poly
Idaho

Post: #94

(07-26-2024 11:02 AM)PicksUp Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:53 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote: What is the added value of this move for the MW schools?
Would it be worth it to the MW schools to pay the penalty to leave that conference to join a PAC 2 that is comprised of the runts who were left behind?
If the current/next MW media deal can't get $20m per school per year, how is joining WSU and OSU going to get more than the MW will make?
The MW actually already has the better media markets as opposed to OSU/WSU. So does leaving a stable MW to join an unstable PAC 2 bring any sort of return on investment?
Personally I wouldn't trust the PAC schools on any valuation numbers they show. These are two of the schools that thought a PAC 10 minus USCLA was still worth $50m per school. What are Cal/Ford making for being in the ACC? I'd cut that number in half and work with that as the ceiling for a media deal.

Nobody in the PAC seriously thought they were going to make 50m per year. People took that number and ran with it without any evidence that the decision makers actually believed that. There was one school (Utah) that threw that number out there and I think it was the president. Im sure they wanted more than 30m since they rejected that deal when ESPN first offered.

As for a new PAC/MWC, they will be lucky to make 10-12m per school. Would they even make that much if they only stuck with at most 8 schools? Maybe. A full merger might knock down the values to about 7-8m per school. Whatever happens I doubt the MWC will dissolve cleanly and leave some schools behind.

OK, so you actually prove my point. I went with the extreme high number I read right here on this board. The PAC2 isn't getting $50m, $40m, $30m, $20m or even $10m per second. Definitely not when the schools being brought in are from the MWC which has a media deal worth what about $4m per school per year? That is about half of what the AAC is getting.
So why would a MW school leave the conference that is getting $4m per year, pay the withdrawal fee, only to join another G-league conference? Wouldn't the the return on investment be a negative?

Post: #95

(07-26-2024 08:38 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote: B1G at 18, ACC at 17+ND…

Why not dissolve both the MW and AAC and go 18 + 4 football-only’rs with Army, Navy, Airforce and Hawaii…

“Power American Conference (PAC)”

FOOTBALL

East Region (not “division”)
*Army (Patriot)
*Navy (Patriot)
ECU
UAB
USF
FAU
Memphis
Tulane
Rice
UTSA
UNT
WestRegion(not “division”)
*Hawaii (Big West)
*AirForce (MVC or Summit)
WaSU
OSU
Boise
Fresno
San Diego
UNLV
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico

Football schedule…
3 OOC
6 in-region
2 OORegion (1 home, 1 away)
1 flex game *in region and for the teams not in the>>>>4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

M & W basketball is easy and will be split into 2 9-team divisions…

Double RR in division (16 games)
1 away cross division (1 game)
1 home cross division (1 game)

Division tournaments in each respective region until 2 remaining in each division….these 4 go to PAC Final Four.

All other sports in region with small amount of crossover = very little cross country travel (unlike B1G, ACC and Big 12).

So, you have effectively kicked out 6 teams: Charlotte, Temple, Tulsa, Nevada, San Jose St and Utah State. What happens to them after all the lawsuits are settled?

Or do they form a new conference together with the four football only schools in the PAC? I'm not sure what the athletic future holds for the service academies in this new professional collegiate world. I think I'll start a separate thread to discuss that topic.

Post: #96

(07-26-2024 08:38 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote: B1G at 18, ACC at 17+ND…

Why not dissolve both the MW and AAC and go 18 + 4 football-only’rs with Army, Navy, Airforce and Hawaii…

“Power American Conference (PAC)”

FOOTBALL

East Region (not “division”)
*Army (Patriot)
*Navy (Patriot)
ECU
UAB
USF
FAU
Memphis
Tulane
Rice
UTSA
UNT
WestRegion(not “division”)
*Hawaii (Big West)
*AirForce (MVC or Summit)
WaSU
OSU
Boise
Fresno
San Diego
UNLV
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico

Football schedule…
3 OOC
6 in-region
2 OORegion (1 home, 1 away)
1 flex game *in region and for the teams not in the>>>>4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

M & W basketball is easy and will be split into 2 9-team divisions…

Double RR in division (16 games)
1 away cross division (1 game)
1 home cross division (1 game)

Division tournaments in each respective region until 2 remaining in each division….these 4 go to PAC Final Four.

All other sports in region with small amount of crossover = very little cross country travel (unlike B1G, ACC and Big 12).

4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

I assume this is instead of sending a representative to the CFP if they are ranked high enough. There's not enough room now on the calendar to fit 2 conference tournament games plus three (or four) rounds in the CFP. I doubt the P4 will adjust the schedule to accommodate the PAC.

If the only G conferences able to go to the CFP are the Belt, MAC and CUSA, do the P4 still want to give one of them a guaranteed seat at the CFP?

(This post was last modified: 07-27-2024 07:31 AM by ken d.)

Post: #97

(07-27-2024 01:14 AM)joeben69 Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:19 AM)GTFletch Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:17 AM)solohawks Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:10 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: If the Pac could pick any 6:

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
AFA
CSU

They can offer, let the new schools decide if they want to join right away and pay the huge fee, sue the MWC, wait a couple years, etc etc. It's possible that the 2Pac were willing to delay any sort of MWC raid b/c they wanted to keep their P4 option open, just in case.

That's a lot of money to get rid of Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii

So would Wyoming, Utah State, New Mexico, SJSU, Nevada and Hawaii join CUSA or AAC?

By guess is they would take UTEP and NMSU plus push for some FCS upgrades

Potential MWC FCS upgrades
Montana
Montana St.
North Dakota St.
South Dakota St.
Sacramento St.
UC Davis
Cal Poly
Idaho

Northern Arizona
Weber State
Utah Tech (near Vegas)
Tarleton State
Northern Iowa
ACU
SFASU
McNeese State
Lamar
UTRGV
UCA

Post: #98

I'm for the smaller conference, if even just to start.

There should be something to remark about the potential in-fighting and hostilities within MWC that make this OSU/WSU thing challenging, whether it's the MWC folding the PAC2 within itself, or select MWC schools peeling off to rebuild the PAC. When the likes of Colorado State, Air Force, and Boise State are amongst the known critics of the current MWC and are likely amongst the most desirable to OSU/WSU, is it me, or does it seem that it's really those three humbugs that are the holdup to anything maybe more than one or both of the OSU/WSU leaving to backup any shifts within the ACC or elsewhere?

Like, if those three were to leave, the MWC should throw the book at them. Heck, the MWC should throw their book at them and go to the library and hurl those books, too. And, if you're OSU/WSU, you've probably seen enough of how that sausage is made; some of these schools are real PitA's. And it's not like any of them really ooze "big-time" image or money.

Still, to play, I think the following would be pretty respectable to start:

Oregon State
Washington State
San Diego State
Boise State
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
Hawaii FB/Gonzaga BB

See how that goes, and then push east if needed, like for Rice, Tulane, Memphis, or Wichita State for non-FB purposes.

Post: #99

[/quote]

(07-27-2024 07:24 AM)ken d Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:38 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote: B1G at 18, ACC at 17+ND…

Why not dissolve both the MW and AAC and go 18 + 4 football-only’rs with Army, Navy, Airforce and Hawaii…

“Power American Conference (PAC)”

FOOTBALL

East Region (not “division”)
*Army (Patriot)
*Navy (Patriot)
ECU
UAB
USF
FAU
Memphis
Tulane
Rice
UTSA
UNT
WestRegion(not “division”)
*Hawaii (Big West)
*AirForce (MVC or Summit)
WaSU
OSU
Boise
Fresno
San Diego
UNLV
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico

Football schedule…
3 OOC
6 in-region
2 OORegion (1 home, 1 away)
1 flex game *in region and for the teams not in the>>>>4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

M & W basketball is easy and will be split into 2 9-team divisions…

Double RR in division (16 games)
1 away cross division (1 game)
1 home cross division (1 game)

Division tournaments in each respective region until 2 remaining in each division….these 4 go to PAC Final Four.

All other sports in region with small amount of crossover = very little cross country travel (unlike B1G, ACC and Big 12).

4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

I assume this is instead of sending a representative to the CFP if they are ranked high enough. There's not enough room now on the calendar to fit 2 conference tournament games plus three (or four) rounds in the CFP. I doubt the P4 will adjust the schedule to accommodate the PAC.

If the only G conferences able to go to the CFP are the Belt, MAC and CUSA, do the P4 still want to give one of them a guaranteed seat at the CFP?

This PAC’s conference champ will have access to CFP just like MAC/SBC/CUSA. It would be G4 now and the PAC champ will have played 13 games - prior to CFP start - just like all FBS champs do currently.

(This post was last modified: 07-27-2024 10:58 AM by Fresno Fanatic.)

Post: #100

(07-27-2024 07:06 AM)ken d Wrote:

(07-26-2024 08:38 PM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote: B1G at 18, ACC at 17+ND…

Why not dissolve both the MW and AAC and go 18 + 4 football-only’rs with Army, Navy, Airforce and Hawaii…

“Power American Conference (PAC)”

FOOTBALL

East Region (not “division”)
*Army (Patriot)
*Navy (Patriot)
ECU
UAB
USF
FAU
Memphis
Tulane
Rice
UTSA
UNT
WestRegion(not “division”)
*Hawaii (Big West)
*AirForce (MVC or Summit)
WaSU
OSU
Boise
Fresno
San Diego
UNLV
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico

Football schedule…
3 OOC
6 in-region
2 OORegion (1 home, 1 away)
1 flex game *in region and for the teams not in the>>>>4-team PAC Football Championship Playoff (2 highest ranked per region)

M & W basketball is easy and will be split into 2 9-team divisions…

Double RR in division (16 games)
1 away cross division (1 game)
1 home cross division (1 game)

Division tournaments in each respective region until 2 remaining in each division….these 4 go to PAC Final Four.

All other sports in region with small amount of crossover = very little cross country travel (unlike B1G, ACC and Big 12).

So, you have effectively kicked out 6 teams: Charlotte, Temple, Tulsa, Nevada, San Jose St and Utah State. What happens to them after all the lawsuits are settled?

Or do they form a new conference together with the four football only schools in the PAC? I'm not sure what the athletic future holds for the service academies in this new professional collegiate world. I think I'll start a separate thread to discuss that topic.

About as many lawsuits filed when WAC members in 1998 had their “airport meeting” and formed the Mountain West Conference in 1999.

Temple>>MAC
Tulsa/UNCC>>SBC
SanJose/Nevada/UtahSt>>C-USA
Wichita State >>MVC

(This post was last modified: 07-27-2024 11:03 AM by Fresno Fanatic.)